> Hans Reiser <reiser@idiom.com> wrote
> > inheritance, I m ean that you can specify an attribute parent, and
> > when one wants to know what the value of any attribute not present
> > in the object is, one looks at the parent.
>
> I can see how this might save a lot of time/space with permissions; if
> the permissions set was inherited in such a fashion, then the
> permissions of whole heirarchies of files could be specified
> entirely with just a few bits in the top most node. With the only
> distinction being between files and directories because directories
> would be drwx... by default. Or, if you internally inherited the
> 'umask' rather than the permissions you could treat dirs and files
> similarly.
>
> Only trouble with this might be that the naive user doing chmod's
> might be be surprised to find it takes a lot longer to chmod a
> single dir, as the fs runs down the tree un-inheriting from this
> particular dir to preserve the Unix fs behaviour. OTOH, chmod -R
> would scream if the chmod syscall could see the -R.
>
> > [ .. ] There are many variations on
> > this that I don't want to get into the relative merits of until I
> > am ready to code (not this year).
>
> Oh :-)
>
> --
> Matt Hannigan
> mlh@zip.com.au
>
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Yes, I agree, you understand me fully.
Hans
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/